PDA

View Full Version : Murray: Rios is best player never to win a Slam.


Mainad
09-12-2012, 03:05 PM
On a CNN interview I watched tonight, he had to face a quick-question-and-answer session at the end. When asked who he thought was the best player never to win a Slam, he immediately replied: Marcelo Rios.

(On the other hand, when he was asked a few years ago what he thought about Murray, Rios replied: I am not impressed.)

He was also asked how many Slams he thought he would win. He replied: About 3.

90's Clay
09-12-2012, 03:24 PM
He was much more talented then Murray.. He and Nalbandian should have had a 4-5 slams anyways.

Mainad
09-12-2012, 03:39 PM
He was much more talented then Murray.. He and Nalbandian should have had a 4-5 slams anyways.

But they didn't. In the end, it's what you do with your talent that counts. Murray has done much more with his.

Legend of Borg
09-12-2012, 03:43 PM
But they didn't. In the end, it's what you do with your talent that counts. Murray has done much more with his.

lol you sound so mad right now.

Mainad
09-12-2012, 03:45 PM
lol you sound so mad right now.

Not at all. Just trying to point out a few facts (as always). :wink:

Tshooter
09-12-2012, 03:50 PM
lol you sound so mad right now.


I think that's called "projecting."

Gonzalito17
09-12-2012, 04:32 PM
Marat Safin said in that new book about Rios that Rios "had the talent to win ten grand slams."

Headshotterer
09-12-2012, 04:51 PM
Rios was never in contention because he is short like Ferrer 5'9

cork_screw
09-12-2012, 05:03 PM
I mentioned Rios when a thread was started and everyone had murray's name. People need to look up stuff that isn't from your generation. Most people probably weren't alive during some presidential terms, yet they feel like they know all their policies based on what biases are floating around.

tistrapukcipeht
09-12-2012, 05:09 PM
But they didn't. In the end, it's what you do with your talent that counts. Murray has done much more with his.

Exactly, the most important is a grand slam, if they didn't win they're not the same place with Murray, even with more talent than Murray.

timnz
09-12-2012, 05:34 PM
Rios was never in contention because he is short like Ferrer 5'9

But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.

tacou
09-12-2012, 05:44 PM
I've heard a lot about Rios and from what I've seen he had talent, but the dude reached 4 quarter finals and 1 final in majors...not very impressive.

roundiesee
09-12-2012, 05:59 PM
I think every one on tour knew how good Rios was in his heyday; I think even Federer once said his favourite player to watch was Rios.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 06:03 PM
He was much more talented then Murray.. He and Nalbandian should have had a 4-5 slams anyways.

Rios was a royal headcase. I remember watching him when he ascended to #1 and he destroyed Agassi in the Miami final, I was really impressed, he looked like an Agassi with better foot speed and a slightly better serve. However around the same time when it came to big matches in slams he flopped like a fish out of water. Absolute pathetic virtual tank of the Australian Open final to Korda. A lackluster effort in losing to Moya at the French. Then a complete tank vs Larsson at the U.S Open. He did have to deal with alot of injuries but his attitude was terrible and he never had the will or heart of a champion.

He wouldnt have had the toughest era to win slams in either. 1998-2002 was mostly weaker than even the Federer era.

90's Clay
09-12-2012, 06:11 PM
Rios was a royal headcase. I remember watching him when he ascended to #1 and he destroyed Agassi in the Miami final, I was really impressed, he looked like an Agassi with better foot speed and a slightly better serve. However around the same time when it came to big matches in slams he flopped like a fish out of water. Absolute pathetic virtual tank of the Australian Open final to Korda. A lackluster effort in losing to Moya at the French. Then a complete tank vs Larsson at the U.S Open. He did have to deal with alot of injuries but his attitude was terrible and he never had the will or heart of a champion.

He wouldnt have had the toughest era to win slams in either. 1998-2002 was mostly weaker than even the Federer era.



It was sad his career came to that.. But he showed especially against in Miami in that match you're alluding to just how much crazy talent he truly had.. And he showed it a few other times.. I believe it was Safin who said Rios had the talent to be a double digit slam winner.

Rios (on his game and not head casing it) was one of the better players I saw from a pure ability standpoint in the last two years..

When people say who should have had a ton of slams, I got Rios' name right in there with guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Stich and Muster and a few others. These were some of those most pure talented players Ive seen..

But it of course there is more to tennis then just talent and ability.. Very few can bring it all together both mentally and physically and keep their focus and continuing their wanting to improve

tennisMVP
09-12-2012, 06:11 PM
Rios vs Agassi was extremely entertaining, in their 3 meetings-

2002 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Agassi, Andre
6-7(7), 6-4 RET

1998 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Hard F Rios, Marcelo
6-4, 2-6, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3

1998 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Rios, Marcelo
7-5, 6-3, 6-4

Legend of Borg
09-12-2012, 06:16 PM
I think that's called "projecting."

Pesky Freudians and their pseudoscience.

Shoo!

pvaudio
09-12-2012, 06:21 PM
But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
No, what held him back was that he was a ******bag who took his talent for granted.

syke
09-12-2012, 09:08 PM
Is winning a grand slam more than being No. 1.
Being No. 1 means you were the best player on the planet over that period of time. Winning a grand slam but only playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle to someone else throughout your career, to me just says you were never the best.

what do you guys think?

Bobby Jr
09-12-2012, 10:00 PM
Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
And the fact he was, for long stretches, one of the worst slackers in tennis history coupled with being borderline uncoachable.

His coach even told me - right next to the court when Rios was practising - that he was going to move on because Rios didn't adopting anything he ever suggested - he *apparently* just like to have someone there to tell him he was doing fine.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 10:03 PM
Is winning a grand slam more than being No. 1.
Being No. 1 means you were the best player on the planet over that period of time. Winning a grand slam but only playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle to someone else throughout your career, to me just says you were never the best.

what do you guys think?


No winning a Grand Slam is worth more. Just look at Wozniacki, Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic. Nobody wants to be them. Rios is the only slamless #1 in mens tennis history so he is a unique case. Being #1 also does not mean you are the best player in the World neccessarily, just that you collected the most points. There is a big difference. Even in the case you deserve the #1 ranking, it doesnt neccessarily mean you are the current best. Here are some cases where the #1 ranked player was NOT considered by people as the current best:

-Kafelnikov while he was ranked #1 in 1999. Was never considered the best player in the World by anyone, not for a moment. Moya, Rafter, during their 1 or 2 weeks stints werent either.

-Davenport when she ended 2001 at #1.

-Davenport again while ranked #1 in 2004 and 2005.

-Clijsters while ranked #1 in the latter part of 2003.

-Hingis while she was ranked #1, well certainly by mid 2000 at the latest, and she wouldnt lose it until late 2001.

-Safina the entire time she was ranked #1. Had she won the French maybe some would have briefly given her that title, but she didnt.

-Jankovic the entire time she was ranked #1.

-Ivanovic the brief time she was ranked #1 (even if she did win a slam around the same time she got to #1, she still was never considered the best).

-Most of all Wozniacki the entire time she was ranked #1.

-Lendl most of the times he was ranked #1 in 1989 and 1990.

-Azarenka right now.

big ted
09-12-2012, 10:47 PM
rios could beat anyone or lose to anyone so i dont think he was consistent enough to be the best player to never win a slam. he didnt even get past the 3rd round in over half of the gs tournaments he played. he was probably a player that the others didnt mind playing against since he mentally folded so easily. i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios

TennisLovaLova
09-13-2012, 02:13 AM
But they didn't. In the end, it's what you do with your talent that counts. Murray has done much more with his.

Murray is lucky Federer was burned in the olympic final and the universe wanted him to win uso
so talent has nothing to do with this, it's also about luck and how everything is perfectly aligned for you to win a gs

i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios

Put that bong down now

Torres
09-13-2012, 03:10 AM
Unbelieveable talent. Just a bit flakey up top...

http://thebiofile.com/2010/01/marcelo-rios-the-mysterious-champion/

Mainad
09-13-2012, 04:32 AM
Murray is lucky Federer was burned in the olympic final and the universe wanted him to win uso
so talent has nothing to do with this, it's also about luck and how everything is perfectly aligned for you to win a gs

Oh please change this well-worn record. You need talent and a bit of luck to win any big title. That's the same for everybody. You cannot land big titles just by sheer luck alone unless your opponents all pull out of the matches. Just because you like Rios and dislike Murray doesn't translate to "One of them must have talent and the other doesn't'. You need to understand this and try and separate your feelings about a player from a true and objective analysis of their abilities.

Gonzalito17
09-13-2012, 04:41 AM
I think every one on tour knew how good Rios was in his heyday; I think even Federer once said his favourite player to watch was Rios.

Federer has said numerous times Rios was one of his favorite players to watch.

Here is one of them from the Rios book:

On Marcelo Rios in 2006: I think he could play both Tours (ATP and Seniors), he's that good. I'm happy to see him play at all, you know, because of all the injuries he's had, good career he's had. It would be a disappointment not to see him play at all. He's such a unique player with a lot of talent. I would love to see him back on Tour. You know, that's where I would like to see him. Not the Senior's Tour.

Gonzalito17
09-13-2012, 04:45 AM
rios could beat anyone or lose to anyone so i dont think he was consistent enough to be the best player to never win a slam. he didnt even get past the 3rd round in over half of the gs tournaments he played. he was probably a player that the others didnt mind playing against since he mentally folded so easily. i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios

Todd Martin was 2-0 vs. Rios and he explained it that his coach Jose Higueras had the perfect strategy for him to apply to Rios (I'll post it later have to pull it from the book). Martin was a heckuva player and underappreciated, he strangely never gets mentioned in the 'best player to never win a major' debate. Never.

TennisLovaLova
09-13-2012, 05:20 AM
Oh please change this well-worn record. You need talent and a bit of luck to win any big title. That's the same for everybody. You cannot land big titles just by sheer luck alone unless your opponents all pull out of the matches. Just because you like Rios and dislike Murray doesn't translate to "One of them must have talent and the other doesn't'. You need to understand this and try and separate your feelings about a player from a true and objective analysis of their abilities.

I'm just saying that murray has the talent but also the luck to win the gs
And I dont dislike murray as a person but I really dislike his passive tennis

Crisstti
09-14-2012, 02:03 PM
But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.

Yep. That and that he was a headcase. But he had gotten himself together in 2008, and then to a big degree injuries derailed his career.

-RF-
09-14-2012, 02:49 PM
Everyone forgets Coria :( He could have been so good...

Fastpace Ace
09-14-2012, 03:11 PM
Old upload must have been one of the first on the tuber lol, but it shows this guys gift. Saw it a few years back and I was tripping on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29jx9Pz-pU0

Ripster
09-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Everyone forgets Coria :( He could have been so good...

Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.

Mustard
09-14-2012, 05:13 PM
Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.

Korda tested negative after that final, by the way. The only player to test positive after a major final is Puerta.

oy vey
09-14-2012, 06:45 PM
On a CNN interview I watched tonight,He was also asked how many Slams he thought he would win. He replied: About 3.

I'd say that's about right, wouldn't you? I don't think he's Fedal calibre.

RF20Lennon
09-14-2012, 06:50 PM
I think i agree with ANdy on this one!

NadalAgassi
09-14-2012, 06:56 PM
Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.

Rios played like garbage in that final. Lets not blame his losing on Korda's supposed doping. If Korda was really to be eliminated Kucera is the real champion, he lost to Korda in the semis after beating Sampras, and I am sure would have beaten the pathetic Rios that played that final.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 07:06 PM
I'd say that's about right, wouldn't you? I don't think he's Fedal calibre.

He's probably left it a bit too late to rack up the same number of Slams that Federer and Nadal have. They started at a much earlier age, 21 and 19 respectively, which gave them a much greater head start. Murray is now 25 with probably about 5 years left as a top player. He's admitted as much himself.
Not impossible, just very unlikely.

monfed
09-14-2012, 07:57 PM
Imo it's Nalbandian. A true tennis tragedy that he didn't win multiple slams and it's truly sad that we didn't get to see a full fledged Federer-Nalbandian rivalry at the biggest of stages. Truly enjoyed their masters cup meetings,even though Fed lost some of those. Great stuff.

oy vey
09-15-2012, 04:38 PM
He's probably left it a bit too late to rack up the same number of Slams that Federer and Nadal have. They started at a much earlier age, 21 and 19 respectively, which gave them a much greater head start. Murray is now 25 with probably about 5 years left as a top player. He's admitted as much himself.
Not impossible, just very unlikely.

In the next 16 slams, how do you think they will be divided given he says he might win 3

pound cat
09-15-2012, 04:57 PM
Rios's priority was having a good time ...which he did and likely still does ...Coria lost it during his RG final to Gaudio which I watched..classic lesson in convincing a crowd to get behind you by Gaudio..amazing match..basically watching an athlete crumbling before your eyes.....permanently as it turns out for Coria


I was fortunate enought to watch Rios when he lost l to Safin in Toronto...Rios had a back injury...


I doubt if Murray ever watched Rios play..not an original thought from him.

Crisstti
09-15-2012, 06:17 PM
Rios's priority was having a good time ...which he did and likely still does ...Coria lost it during his RG final to Gaudio which I watched..classic lesson in convincing a crowd to get behind you by Gaudio..amazing match..basically watching an athlete crumbling before your eyes.....permanently as it turns out for Coria


I was fortunate enought to watch Rios when he lost l to Safin in Toronto...Rios had a back injury...


I doubt if Murray ever watched Rios play..not an original thought from him.

I don't see why he wouldn't have watched Ríos play.

r2473
09-15-2012, 08:25 PM
I mentioned Rios when a thread was started and everyone had murray's name. People need to look up stuff that isn't from your generation. Most people probably weren't alive during some presidential terms, yet they feel like they know all their policies based on what biases are floating around.

George Washington is GOAT